37 which would justify applying a more favorable norm to the convicted person”; so that, “based on the provisions of Act. No. 1444 ‘which regulates the period of transition to the new system of criminal procedure’ and on Article 481, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force, the appeal for review must be rejected as inadmissible.”79 69(47) On May 28, 2002 Mr. Canese and his lawyers filed a “petition for clarification” regarding decision and judgment No. 374 of May 6, 2002 (supra para. 69(46)), in order to establish whether “the ‘inadmissibility’ of the review […] referred exclusively to the specific appeal for review filed before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay, or whether, ‘at some time’, should there be grounds, [they] could file this appeal for review again, before the pertinent instance.” On July 23, 2002, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay delivered decision and judgment No. 756, in which it explained that the rejection of the appeal for view owing to inadmissibility corresponded only to that specific case; and did not prevent a new appeal to be filed on different grounds.80 69(48) On August 12, 2002, Ricardo Canese and his lawyers filed an appeal for review before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay, based on the existence of a “new fact.” This fact was that the Inter-American Commission had submitted an application to the Inter-American Court concerning alleged violations of Mr. Canese’s human rights and it had been notified to the State. In this appeal, they requested that: a) final judgment No. 17 of March 22, 1994, decision and judgment No. 18 of November 4, 1997, decision and judgment No. 179 of May 2, 2001, and decision and judgment No. 374 of May 6, 2002 (supra para. 69(15), 69(20), 69(41) and 69(46)) be annulled; b) the conviction and sentence be declared dismissed, “and any resulting legal effects eliminated […]”; c) the decision on the appeal include a public apology for the violation of freedom of expression; d) “the current and former State officials who created the violation” repair Mr. Canese’s financial losses; and e) the complainants be ordered to pay “the costs of the [domestic] proceeding, and also of the procedure before the Inter-American C[ommission on Human Rights] and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”81 69(49) On December 11, 2002, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay delivered decision and judgment No. 1362, ruling on the appeal for review filed on August 12, 2002 (supra para. 69(48)). The Criminal Chamber decided: a) to admit the appeal for review; b) to annul final judgment No. 17 handed 79 Cf. decision and judgment No. 374 issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on May 6, 2002 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome II, attachment 4, folios 1199 to 1202). 80 Cf. petition for clarification filed by Ricardo Canese and his lawyers before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on May 28, 2002; and decision and judgment No. 756 issued by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay on July23, 2002 (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome II, attachment 4, folios 1205 to 1208). 81 Cf. appeal for review filed by Ricardo Canese and his lawyers on August 12, 2002, before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Paraguay (copy of the file of the criminal proceeding against Ricardo Canese for the offenses of slander and injuria before the First Criminal Trial Court, file of attachments to the brief answering the application, and with observations on the brief with requests and arguments, tome I, attachment 4, folios 1212 to 1244).